Cosmopolitan democracy

One major contribution to the universalist stream is the theory of cosmopolitan democracy centred on David Held’s idea of global governance.⁷Held argues that the realisation of the cosmopolitan vision, that of lasting world peace and universal equality of individuals, cannot rely on the states’ democratic capacity only. As a result of globalisation, the idea of a political community can no longer be exclusively located within the boundaries of the territorial nation-state and secondly, the locus of effective political power has shifted from national governments to international regimes and forums, international and regional organisations, and a variety of transnational corporations. Consequently, it is argued that democracy must be strengthened within and beyond borders and effective democratic law internationalised. An institutionalisation of cosmopolitan principles based on cosmopolitan democratic law is therefore more than welcome. Moreover, in resolving conflict situations between national sovereignty and international law, he very much advocates a democratisation of the intergovernmental international organisations, in particular granting operational power to the UN. In his version of a cosmopolitan democracy, in addition to the existence of overlapping and spatially variable sovereignties, there exists a multitude of political communities with multiple citizenships and different agendas.

6 Nussbaum, M., Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, in Boston Review, October-November 1994.

7 Held, D., Democracy and Globalization, inGlobal Governance, Vol. 3, no. 3, 1997.

A Cosmopolitan Perspective of Multi-level Governance in Europe

115

Daniele Archibugi⁸elaborates on Held’s new democratic condition and examines the prospects for cosmopolitan democracy as a viable and humane response to the challenges of globalisation. He argues that democracy has to function simultaneously on domestic, international and global levels of political authority in order to generate a lasting normative framework. He therefore proposes a renewed model for global citizenship, i.e. institutional cosmopolitanism. He argues that democracy can be extended to the global political arena by strengthening and reforming existing international organisations and creating new ones. Furthermore he calls for dramatic changes in the foreign policies of nations to make them compatible with global public interests and, consequently, advocates giving a voice to new global players such as social movements, cultural communities, and minorities.

Finally, he proposes building institutional channels across borders to address common problems and encourages democratic governance at the local, national, regional, and global levels.

In short, Archibugi’s vision of the cosmopolitan world order is one of a multi-level system of democratic governance, i.e. a cosmopolitan democracy in which democratic participation by citizens is not constrained by national borders and where democracy spreads through dialogue and incentives.⁹He applies the cosmopolitan logic to concrete issues such as humanitarian intervention, institutional reform at the UN and democratic transitions.

For both scholars, the linkage of democratic institutions outside the boundaries of the state is indeed necessary in order to complement the inadequate democratic capacities of the postmodern state and to monitor the internal state affairs.¹⁰Andrew Linklater talks about the necessity to create a post-Westphalian community, in which citizens have the right to participate in the decision-making processes of international organisations.¹¹ The cosmopolitan argument for a federative development of the global landscape and a global legislative institution should therefore be conceived above all as a framework-setting institution.¹²

8 Archibugi, D., D. Held and M. Kohler (eds.),op. cit.

9 Archibugi, D., Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy, inibid.(eds.), pp. 207-209;

ibid., Cosmopolitan Democracy and Its Critics: A Review, inEuropean Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, no. 3, 2004.

10 Archibugi, D. and D. Held (eds.),op. cit..

11 Linklater, A.,The Transformation of Political Community, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998;ibid., Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian European State, in D. Archibugi, D. Held and M. Kohler (eds.),op. cit., pp. 113-137.

12 Held, D.,Democracy and the Global Order: From Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

Such a cosmopolitan approach to democracy of course has policy consequences.¹³ Firstly, it implies an active membership of individuals in the global community. Global issues, such as human rights, the environment and poverty have a universal impact on all individuals and as such transcend regional, national and international frameworks of cooperation. If global challenges are to be addressed in line with basic democratic principles, citizens should therefore have political representation at various levels of decision-making, from the local neighbourhood up to the international level. Secondly, it involves the institutionalisation of a universal and global citizenship status, which contains a mandatory core of rights, laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, the expression of cosmopolitan citizenship as the empowerment of a nascent global civil society denotes the transnational dimension of the cosmopolitan democracy theory. All these policy consequences require the management of global public goods¹⁴ and the establishment of global bodies that are designed to manage global issues and individual interests in level and multi-actor governance structures.

In short, global citizenship means the transfer of specific elements of national citizenship into the global domain, so that specific global issues can be tackled. The cosmopolitan democracy thesis focuses on the institutional establishment of the cosmopolitan ideal and on the multi-level nature of the emerging system of governance by subscribing to the condition of multiple post-nationalism. The introduction of a global cosmopolitan citizenship status complements national as well as regional and local loci of citizenship and complies with the multiple de-national and de-territorial conditions of citizenship.

Richard Falk offers a pertinent and interesting account of the impact of globalisation on democracy.¹⁵He argues that the growing importance of transnational relations is weakening national citizenship and reducing the importance of social capital at the level of the nation-state. Because of the fact that the logic of market opportunity no longer coincides with the logic of territorial loyalty, the tendency is likely to create links and solidarities across borders rather than within them. Falk proposes a polity of a globalisation from below for offsetting the tendency for

13 Archibugi, D., Cosmopolitan Democracy and Its Critics, op. cit., p.456; ibid., Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy,op. cit., pp. 216-217. See also N. Dower and J. Williams (eds.), Global Citizenship - A Critical Introduction, New York:

Routledge, 2002; D. Held, Democracy and Globalization,op. cit.

14 For the literature on global public goods see I. Kaul, I. Grunberg and M.A. Stern, Global Public Goods, op. cit. and I. Kaul et al. (eds.), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

15 Falk, R., The Decline of Citizenship in an Era of Globalization,op. cit.

A Cosmopolitan Perspective of Multi-level Governance in Europe

117

national governments to be shaped by market-oriented forces pressing globalisation from above. In his human governance approach¹⁶ Falk therefore focuses on the realisation of a system of human government, based on a globalisation from below and beyond national borders, which is rooted in civil society and developed in a practice of transnational democracy. He believes in the creation of a normative global democratic structure, but constructed from below and rooted in the global civil society. As a consequence, the task of transnational social movements is to disseminate a global ethics that surpasses the identity of state sovereignty. Marco Mascia shows that the growing importance of civil society in Europe exemplifies integration from below and supports the hypothesis that this participative dimension provides a new democratic horizon for the EU.¹⁷ This is very important for understanding the practice of a multi-level governance of intercultural dialogue and the role of civil society.